Rich Teen Kills 4 Gets Probation

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

A 16-year-old boy who drunkenly killed four people got probation this week because the judge — with no apparent irony — agreed with the boy's defense that he was a victim of "affluenza," whose parents taught him wealth and privilege shield consequences. The teen had faced up to twenty years in prison.

Sixteen-year-old Ethan Couch admitted to four counts of manslaughter after he and seven other boys stole alcohol from Walmart, piled into his car and struck and killed four pedestrians while going 70 miles per hour in a 40 zone. One of his passengers remains in the hospital with severe brain damage, and nine other bystanders were also injured.

Couch's BAC was a .24 and he also had Valium in his system. According to reports, he was belligerent at the scene, at one point saying, "I'm outta here." Prosecutors were hoping to get up to 20 years.

Couch's defense was that he was a victim of his parents' wealth and privilege; in that he never had to face consequences, which an expert summarized prior to sentencing.

He said Couch got whatever he wanted. As an example, Miller said Couch's parents gave no punishment after police ticketed the then-15-year-old when he was found in a parked pickup with a passed out, undressed 14-year-old girl.

Miller also pointed out that Couch was allowed to drive at 13. He said the teen was emotionally flat and needed years of therapy. At the time of the fatal wreck, Couch had a blood alcohol content of .24, said Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson. It is illegal for a minor to drive with any amount of alcohol in his or her system.
The victims' families sort of agree with the reasoning, in that they too feel that Couch's privilege helped him avoid consequences.

Couch is now being sent to a $500,000-a-year counseling center. There are apparently five civil wrongful death suits pending against him totaling tens of millions of dollars.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/12/10/teen-sentenced-to-probation-for-deadly-dwi-crash/

Well I hope the civil suits bleed those jerks dry and the next time he does something stupid he faces the consequences without the money to bail him out

 

[KevanG]

Kid should have had a reality check far earlier in life. This is atrocious.

 

[Quasimod0]

Wow he sounds like a truly awful kid. He should have gone to jail

 

[Schlosser85]

he was a victim of "affluenza," whose parents taught him wealth and privilege shield consequences

So by all means let's continue teaching him that...

 

[Quasimod0]

So by all means let's continue teaching him that...

Thats exactly what i was thinkin. Terrible judge.

 

[Feenix]

I'm thinking the families suing for wrongful death will win.

Then again, the jerk's parents can clearly afford a ridiculously good attorney, so they might be in for a longer battle.

In this case, I'm all for vigilante justice.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Not surprised unfortunately I've heard about cases like this. The kid needs a good beating.

 

[smashmode]

I am completely ok if one of the victims families want to take out this kid and his entire family.

 

[NickNitro]

Couch's defense was that he was a victim of his parents' wealth and privilege; in that he never had to face consequences, which an expert summarized prior to sentencing.

I hope this piece of **** and his family get what they deserve...maybe not now..but at some point. How ****ing self righteous can you be. **** them.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

"Couch's defense was that he was a victim of his parents' wealth and privilege; in that he never had to face consequences,"

Sooo....we're going to go ahead and continue the same trend? Because that seems to be working really well so far...

 

[Vid Electricz]

So by all means let's continue teaching him that...

10/10.

/thread.

 

[NickNitro]

Exactly.......this judge is a ****ing moron

 

[Pink Ranger]

There is an appeals process, I hope. No sane appeal judge would let that defence stand.

 

[Teelie]

I'm wondering what connection this judge has to the family. Is he related, long time friends, political donations? There's seriously no other explanation coming to mind than an inappropriate tie to the family to let some ******* like this get off on probation because he's literally too rich to know better.

 

[NickNitro]

He's probably corrupt and in their pocket. Not like thats unknown with people who have wealth and power and have run ins with the law. The thing is...4 people died...this is absolutely absurd.

 

[Teelie]

I wonder if you can try the reverse and tell this judge you grew up poor and know no other life than crime and see how far that flies.

 

[Matt]

My guess is that this story is probably out of context. The story says nothing about a trial or conviction. Therefore, this is probably the result of a plea bargain and his comment about being a victim of his parents is probably less of a defense than this article makes it out to be. He probably said it during his apology (most plea bargains allow for the defendant to address the court and usually they will apologize, take responsibility, etc). He was probably saying that he has made mistakes due to a sense of entitlement or something like that, not that he is a "victim."

This is probably the case of a prosecutor not wanting to destroy the life of a sixteen year old who made a very stupid mistake that he will live with for the rest of his life and make a massive tragedy even more tragic. Therefore the defendant was offered a plea bargain. But that isn't as sexy for the media as, "JUDGE LETS SIXTEEN YEAR OLD WALK BECAUSE HE IS RICH! HAHA! TAKE THAT POOR PEOPLE!"

 

[Matt]

I wonder if you can try the reverse and tell this judge you grew up poor and know no other life than crime and see how far that flies.

You'd be very surprised how many judges are incredibly sympathetic to that during sentencing.

 

[Teelie]

I'd also be unsurprised that a judge would say he was indifferent, the law is the law and convict them to the maximum allowed. It's no secret the rich get a lighter sentence for their crimes than the poor. Good lawyers or not, you shouldn't be able to say you were a spoiled rotten child and get away with something anyone else would get jail time for.

 

[Lantern Venom]

DWIs/DUIs which result in someone's death should carry a minimum 25-year sentence.

 

[Matt]

I'd also be unsurprised that a judge would say he was indifferent, the law is the law and convict them to the maximum allowed. It's no secret the rich get a lighter sentence for their crimes than the poor. Good lawyers or not, you shouldn't be able to say you were a spoiled rotten child and get away with something anyone else would get jail time for.

Non-lawyers shouldn't talk about the law.

That probably is not what happened here. The judge probably had very little to do with the sentence. This is probably the result of a prosecutor, not a judge, a prosecutor cutting a plea bargain. Once again, "I was spoiled," probably wasn't the defense, it was probably something he said during his apology to the court and is probably more in the line of, "I am spoiled and want to change now that I see my actions have consequences." And it probably has nothing to do with money and everything to do with being merciful. Prosecutors are humans with emotions. Further, they are usually very good attorneys who can make more money elsewhere but genuinely believe that they are serving a greater good. There is very little greater good in imprisoning a kid for the hell of it. The PROSECUTOR probably saw this as an attempt to be merciful and give this kid a shot at a life, rather than destroying any chance he would have by putting him in a prison. My guess is the same thing would happen if he were a poor black kid from the ghetto (hell, I've seen similar things happen).

But if you look at it from that perfectly logical perspective, there isn't any sexy conspiracy theory about the rich screwing us little guys over and where's the fun in that?

 

[Teelie]

By that justification non-[insert here] shouldn't talk about [insert here] because they don't know enough about it.

The take away is still the same to us plebeians that some rich kid got away with murder manslaughter, literally.

 

[Matt]

By that justification non-[insert here] shouldn't talk about [insert here] because they don't know enough about it.

The take away is still the same to us plebeians that some rich kid got away with murder, literally.

Precisely why non-lawyers shouldn't talk about the law. They say stupid things.

This wasn't murder. Murder requires malice. Do you really think this kid started the night saying, "I'm gonna get drunk and kill those bastard friends of mine! Muahahahahahaha!"? No? Didn't think so. Hence, no malice. Thus it cannot be murder.

It is manslaughter. I'm not a prosecutor. If I were, I wouldn't destroy a 16 year old's life over manslaughter. It is tragic. Undeniably. I wouldn't add more tragedy to the situation by putting someone in prison just because I can. I would try to salvage a life. And that seems to be exactly what the prosecutor did. Good on him.

 

[Matt]

Nice edit, Teelie.

 

[Teelie]

I did change it to reflect manslaughter, which is still the same thing as he killed other people, but I guess you jumped on that quote too fast to notice.

edit: Yes, I realized murder was the wrong term, though the same outcome and altered it to the appropriate one.

edit 2: Perhaps I'm more jaded about it from the obviously slanted reporting but in the face of it, he sounds like he's getting off on it from the harsher sentence because he's rich. If he were poor but otherwise the details were the same I'd probably be more sympathetic to letting him have a second chance. Being he's rich it feels like he already had that chance everyone else missed out on, having a better life.